View more on these topics

Claims firm forced to change misleading ad after Neil Liversidge complaint

The Advertising Standards Authority has forced a claims firm to change a misleading newspaper advert after a complaint by West Riding Personal Financial Solutions managing director Neil Liversidge.

EMCAS has been forced to amend an advert in a local paper which stated that ‘one in four investors may have been missold’.

The advert sourced this claim as taken from ‘FSA mystery shopper research on six firms, February 2013’.

Liversidge argued this was unfair as the research related to banks only, but the advert implied the statistic applied to all firms.

The ASA contacted EMCAS to ask them to amend the advert to state ‘six firms in the retail banking sector’.

The ASA says: “The advertiser has amended their advert in this way and we are satisfied that the amended advert is now unlikely to breach the code.”

Apfa council member Liversidge worked with Apfa’s research team to lodge the complaint.

Liversidge says: “This is a small victory. Hopefully through Apfa’s prompt action a lot of inconvenience will be avoided for adviser firms who won’t now be tarred with the same brush as the banks.”

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 2 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. There are plenty of extra misleading things in the ‘Claims Management Companies’ web sites, advertising and publicity especially when compared to their terms as agreed by the regulator…. just awaiting honest advisers to take the case forwards but is it too late now that they have taken billions of PPI compensation which should have gone to hard-pressed members of the public who could have used the free FOS service and not them…?

  2. IFA’s dont want to be associated with banks? Now there’s a surprise! Why is that, because the banks did bad, when they kept advertising that all they did was good!

    Join the club Neil! As a reputable CMC (not ONE complaint upheld by the regulator in over 10 years – one complaint looked at that was shown to be inaccurate) we dont want to be associated with the same dodgy CMC’s you and the rest of the FS industry we all are!

    @ Philip – the only reason that PPI became an issue was because CMC’s spent millions and millions of pounds on advertising. If it wasn’t for CMC’s the issue would never have come to light. As for the FOS, you know they are terrible and please dont tell me they are on the side of the consumer, they dont understand basic financial services – had case this morning of a single premium PPI on a mortgage where the adjudicator has stated that the client wont pay interest on the premium because the premium was taken out of the advance and therefore the client would not pay interest over the mortgage term!!! REALLY? Even the adjudicators dont understand who a mortgage works and they are supposed to deal with complex policies like PPI? But at least the FOS would be free!

Leave a comment